The Industrial Commission Of Ohio v. Pora

Decision Date24 June 1919
Docket Number16176
Citation100 Ohio St. 218,125 N.E. 662
Parties"The Industrial Commission Of Ohio v. Pora
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Workmen's compensation - Course of employment - Death follows assault by fellow employe- Controversy between employes.

P., an employe of a manufacturing company that had paid its premiums in the Workmen's Compensation Fund, was ordered by a superior to procure an implement, which was to be used by P to assist such superior. The implement was located in the hands of another employe who had equal rights with P. to its possession. Request for possession was refused. An argument was had by the parties. No effort to obtain possession by violence was made by P., nor was there any conduct justifying any assault by the other employe. Thereupon P. was violently assaulted by such other employe, and died from the effects of the assault.

Held P. was injured in the course of his employment.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr John G. Price, attorney general; Mr. B. W. Gearheart and Mr R. R. Zurmehly, special counsel, and Mr. J. P. Huxley, prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. H. Leighninger and Mr. D. F. Anderson, for defendant in error.


On July 6, 1917, Anna Pora, dependent widow of Sylvester Pora, filed her claim seeking an award from the Industrial Commission of Ohio, asserting that her deceased husband, an employe of The Youngstown Foundry & Machine Company, of Youngstown, Ohio, had sustained an injury in the course of his employment, which resulted in his death.

The industrial commission, after hearing, disallowed the claim, finding that the death of Pora was not caused by an injury sustained in the course of employment. From this decision the defendant in error appealed to the common pleas court of Mahoning county.

The case was submitted to the court on an agreed statement Of facts, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the claimant in the sum of $8.63 per week for a period of 312 weeks.

This judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals.

The facts as agreed on between the parties show that Sylvester Pora was employed as a moulder's helper, and was directed by his superior to go to another part of the plant and obtain an electric riddle for the immediate use of the moulder. In obedience to this order Pora went to the place where the electric riddle was being used by another moulder and his helper. Upon demand being duly made, the second helper refused to give Pora the instrument.

The two helpers engaged in a controversy over the possession of the implement, whereupon the second helper struck Pora over the head with a shovel, as a result of which blow Pora died the following day. It was further agreed that Pora and the second helper had equal rights to the use of the implement.

The statement of facts agreed upon makes use of the term "controversy" as descriptive of the situation immediately preceding the assault. This term has a variety of meanings and shades of meaning. It may mean much or little. Consulting dictionaries we find definitions and synonyms in great number, ranging from simple "argument" to "brawl."

As a rule the term is not employed to describe a physical encounter.

With the advantage of the hindsight we now possess it would have been wiser if Pora, when denied possession, had retired from the scene and reported the situation to his superior. It was, however, the natural thing, that he should be disposed to argue the matter, when denied the thing to which he was entitled in an equal sense, with the immediate possessor.

In seeking to obtain its possession he was carrying out the order of his superior, and his failure to make some reasonable effort to obtain it would have constituted a breach of his apparent duty. He was seeking the implement that would enable him to properly pursue his employment, and without which it must be assumed he could not labor to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Stivison v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 31 December 1997
    ...the moment of manifestation should be immaterial." (Emphasis sic.) 2 Larson, supra, at 5-504, Section 29.22. In Indus. Comm. v. Pora (1919), 100 Ohio St. 218, 125 N.E. 662, Pora was employed as a molder's helper and was directed by his supervisor to go to another part of the plant and obtai......
  • Kable v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 31 July 1948
    ...224 N.C. 669, 31 S.E.2d 918; Keithley v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 226 Mo.App. 1122, 49 S.W.2d 296; Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Pora, 100 Ohio St. 218, 125 N.E. 662; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com'n, 26 Cal.2d 286, 158 P.2d 9, 159 A.L.R. 313; York v. City of......
  • Consolidated Underwriters v. Saxon
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 1 March 1923
    ...A. 1916A, 304, 11 N. C. C. A. 235, and note; Polar Ice & Fuel Co. v. Mulray, 67 Ind. App. 270, 119 N. E. 149; Indemnity Corporation of Ohio v. Pora, 100 Ohio St. 218, 125 N. E. 662; Sponatski's Case, 220 Mass. 526, 108 N. E. 466, L. R. A. 1916A, Appellant, by its third proposition, contends......
  • Kesmarki v. Kisling, 18018-18019.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 10 September 1968
    ...Ohio law and citing McMurtrie v. Wheeling Traction Co., 107 Ohio St. 107, 111, 140 N.E. 636 (1923) and Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Pora, 100 Ohio St. 218, 221, 125 N.E. 662 (1919). We are satisfied that a jury could find that Theresa Kesmarki was negligent and that such negligence prox......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT